From Christopher’s Daily Journal:
As I proceed to put together all of the evidence and witnesses to prove my case of defamation against Echthros, I thought I’d share a few tidbits in my Daily Journal to show how blatantly foolish Echthros has been and how easily it will be to prove defamation against him at trial.
Consider this part of my case:
The Defendant, willfully, wantonly, recklessly, maliciously, and oppressively defamed the Plaintiff for many years on his website bearing the Plaintiff’s family name: chrisnemelka.com
According to Idaho law, the definition of defamation “is the communication of false information which tends to impugn the honesty, integrity, virtue or reputation of the person about whom the statement is made, or exposes that persona to public hatred, contempt or ridicule. Libel is a form of defamation. Libel is the communication of defamatory information by written words, or by some form that has the characteristics of written words.” ( See IDJI 4.80 and Idaho statute 18-4801 – Defamation and Libel Defined.)
I will prove unequivocally that the Defendant communicated information concerning me and others that impugned my (and their) honesty, integrity, virtue and reputation and exposed me (and them) to public hatred, contempt and ridicule. I will prove unequivocally that the information was false; that the Defendant reasonably should have known that it was false; and that I have suffered irreparable injury because of the defamation. (See IDJI 4.82 – Elements of defamation.)
Pursuant to I.R.C.P. Rule 9(i), “it is not necessary [for me] to state in the complaint any extrinsic facts for the purpose of showing the application to the plaintiff of the defamatory matter out of which the cause of action arose; but it is sufficient to state, generally, that the same was published or spoken concerning the plaintiff.”
Echthros claims that I am a public figure … go figure! Yeah, the judge, the clerks, everyone who hears my name recognizes me … yep … not!
But anyways … 🙂
There is no Idaho statute defining a “public figure.” But in generally accepted law definitions, a “public figure” is “a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star or sports hero.” (See com, legal definitions.)
However, the Defendant acted with actual malice (hate) and acted with reckless disregard for the truthfulness of the information that he published, which is barred by law regardless of whether a person is a public person or not. (See IDJI 4.82.5 – Elements of defamation claim – public official or public figure.)
Defamation Per Se
According to Idaho law, I am “deemed to have been injured by the defamation in this case, and I do not need to prove actual injury in order to recover damages.” (See IDJI 4.84 – – Libel or slander per se – presumed damages.)
In this case, I will present clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant “acted with reckless disregard [in his defamation of me], at the time the information was communicated to another”; that the Defendant was negligent. (See IDJI 4.84.5.)
 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974); Wiemer v. Rankin, 117 Idaho 566, 790 P.2d 347 (1990). NOTE: The issue of whether a defamatory communication rises to the level of libel per se is ordinarily a question of law, dependent upon whether the alleged libel is evident on its face, without need for resort to innuendo, implication or extrinsic interpretation. See, Gough v. Tribune-Journal Co., 73 Idaho 173, 249 P.2d 192 (1952). The categories of slander per se are somewhat differently defined under Idaho law and are compartmentalized, unlike libel per se. In addition, Idaho case law seems to suggest that some types of slander per se are issues of law for the court to decide, while other types are issues of fact for jury determination. See, Barlow v. International Harvester, Co., 95 Idaho 881, 522 P.2d 1102 (1974).
 IDJI 2.20 – Definition of negligence: “… the failure to use ordinary care in the management of one’s property or person. The words “ordinary care” mean the care a reasonably careful person would use under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. Negligence may thus consist of the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would do, or the doing of something a reasonably careful person would not do, under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.”
Now let’s get to some evidence of Echthros’ blatant reckless disregard for the truthfulness of the information he wrote about me.
In PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 1, VOL I, II, III : the full website, http://www.chrisnemelka.com, on page 847, the following conversation takes place in the comments section between Echthros and a guy named “Steve.”
The Alaskan Cruise
Some background information:
Sheri and I went on an Alaskan cruise in July of 2015. We traveled to Seattle to board the ship. The day before, I tried out Washington’s recreational marijuana laws and ate some spiked brownies just before we went to a spa to both receive a pedicure. Of course, anyone who knows me knows how generous I can be in tipping, if I have the funds to tip. Being somewhat on a marijuana high, I tipped the pedicurists that took care of my and Sheri’s pedicure very generously.
Here is what “Steve” writes of the event:
Steve // 2015/07/12 at 20:33 // Reply: never heard of this guy but he and his wife appeared in a day spa in Bothell, WA on July 11, 2015 where a friend works. Said they were on their way to an Alaskan cruise. He threw around a lot of money, gave over $150 in tips for less than $80 in services. Was driving an RV. Just seemed too “off” to everyone and kinda on the lamb, so we looked him up and found this. Weird!
Here is Echthros’ reply to “Steve”:
Legion // 2015/07/14 at 15:04 // Reply: Nemelka has gone underground having been thoroughly exposed as a con artist/predator. It’s not unthinkable that he could be living it up at the expense of others since he inherited some money and property from the death of one of his elderly trophies. However, it wouldn’t bode well for his pious act if what you say (tossing money around) is true. There are plenty of folks who would swear that Nemelka would never do such a thing, including His Holiness. I’m wondering, did he do any campaigning there in Bothel??
Yeah, that was Echthros’ response, REALLY! 🙂
If this isn’t negligence and a reckless disregard for the truth, I don’t know what is. If Echthros didn’t engage in “communication of false information which tends to impugn the honesty, integrity, virtue or reputation of the person about whom the statement is made, or exposes that persona to public hatred, contempt or ridicule,” I don’t know what does.
I have never been “underground,” I’ve never went “underground,” and I certainly do not think I have been “exposed as a con artist/predator.” And I assume he is talking about Ida Smith as “one of his elderly trophies.”
In order to avoid being found guilty of defamation in this communication, Echthros will have to prove the truthfulness of his statements. Good luck!
If I “ha[d] gone underground having been thoroughly exposed as a con artist/predator,” why in the world would I have given my real name to the people at the spa or put myself in a situation where I could be “exposed”? Further, Sheri and I were going on a cruise that many people knew about. Now, how that can be considered “going underground,” … well, geez … maybe only Echthros sees the truth about a person’s actions that even the person doesn’t understand about their own actions. 🙂
And being a “predator”?
If a predator is a person who ruthlessly exploits others … goddamit! I’m a lousy exploiter! Instead of taking their money, I give them mine! Dumbass Predator am I!
Many of the witnesses that will be called to testify at trial will testify how I GAVE them money without them giving me anything in return.
One particular, DoriAnn Stubbs Peck, will testify that I helped her get away from a very abusive polygamist relationship, gave her a condo, which she eventually sold. After selling my/her condo, she sent her son, Andrew, to my house with about 6 or 7 thousand dollars in cash from the sale of my/her condo. I refused to take the money and told Andrew to return it to his mother to help with her new home and to take care of her children. I have never received one penny from DoriAnn. And guess what, I’ve never slept with DoriAnn either, nor have I ever tried or treated he with anything but the utmost respect as a woman … damn exploiting predator that I am!
I have a plethora of witnesses that will be testifying as to my crappy predatory ability to exploit others, as I have given much more to them in financial help than they ever gave to me. One in particular is a very beautiful single mother, Kindra Wild (aka). Kindra has known me for years. I have helped her financially at times. I have never come on to Kindra in a sexual manner but have respected her and treated her with compassion as long as I have known her. She is one of my favorite women, but at no time have I ever exploited her in any way. She will testify to this. On the witness stand the judge will see her beauty and hopefully will wonder why, if I had the chance, I didn’t try to have a physical relationship with Kindra or exploit her in some other way, when I could have.
But anyways … 🙂
The events with the Alaskan cruise in Seattle is just one of so, so, so, many times that Echthros made things up in his head through his wild, vidid, malicious, and hateful imagination and turned my natural, kind, generous acts into something malicious, and of course, defamatory. I will point out as many as these as I can at trial, barring the time limitations that the judge places on me to present my case. Two days is certainly not enough time to present all of the malicious defamation statements that Echthros has published.
In fact, few people have ever witnessed me being anything but kind, compassionate, giving, loving, and respectful of others … well, except in my writings as a True Messenger. When I write at times, it is my duty to be hard, forceful, and attack what is not the Real Truth … which I do not like to do, but do it to fulfill my role. To Echthros, my personal treatment of others is all just a big act that I perform so that I can exploit them after I get them to like me. Okay. Does he have any witnesses … ANY … who can personally testify that they saw me act towards them or any other in any way that was not kind, compassionate, giving, loving, and respectful? NO. But to him, it’s because I’m so good at acting.
Sooooooooooooo, when do I not act that way and turn into the predator that he thinks that I am? Hell, I don’t know … But anyways.
As to Ida’s inheritance:
The Anderson Condo at Garden Park
Ida left me her condo. She had very little money left. The money that she had saved over the years was spent to buy her neighbors’ (the Andersons, Milton and Dorothy) condo when the bank was foreclosing on it. The Anderson’s daughter lives in California and couldn’t have been more appreciative of what Ida and I did. “I,” because Ida asked me to help decide what to do to help them. I asked her if she had any money saved. She told me how much and that she was going to leave it all to me and the MWAW. I suggested cashing in her retirement and buying the condo for the Andersons and charging them $400 per month rent, which Ida collected.
Yep, I could have gotten all that retirement money and not given a dime to the Andersons to help them out of their dilemma … you know, being the predator and exploiter that I am … But anyways …
It is true that Ida donated the rent she received from the Andersons to the MWAW Purpose Trust that she set up for the MWAW. It is true that anything donated to this Trust was a pot from which I and the Bros can take funds if needed. It is true that I am not very good with money and I sometimes don’t know where the money comes from. But this I know: the POT is pretty small! Only Julie Taggart … yep, Dangerous Julie Taggart (see page 1 through 49 of the website) … contributes to the MWAW monthly … only dangerous Julie. I’ve told her many times that we don’t need the money because my paycheck goes to the work and the Thiedes pay me well for being involved in their company, but she continues. Why? I really don’t know. She’s one of my witnesses for trial and I’ll ask her on the stand.
Damon and Lynnette Cook
So, I’ll give to Echthros that some of the money that Sheri and I used for the Alaskan cruise (and for the tips) came from the MWAW pot in which Ida had put the Anderson’s rent money. To this day, the MWAW is still in debt $120,000 for the Anderson condo in question. Yep, I couldn’t quite figure out how to use my predator skills to get the money from the condo yet … dammit! 🙂 And why $120,000 in debt? Well, I’ll be producing a couple of other witnesses, Damon and Lynnette Cook, to explain how I exploited them into borrowing $120,000 from me so that they could buy the Anderson condo. 🙂
The case of Norma J. Olsen
Norma had donated $150,000 to the MWAW so that we could purchase time at a local radio station to broadcast MWAW information. Norma was living with her LDS/Mormon daughter at the time that she gave the check directly to me for the purpose of the radio show. When her family found out about the donation, they kicked her out of the house. Yep, they told their 82 year-old mother to leave. Norma called Sheri. Sheri got a hold of me and we (no one else but me and Sheri) went and moved Norma. Once we found her a house, others helped us move he in to her new home.
About Norma’s new house:
I took Norma’s $150,000 and I borrowed another $47,000 on my own credit to buy her the secure condo in which we moved her in a retirement community. Since I seldom see the donations that people put into Ida’s MWAW Purpose Trust, if any, I don’t know how much of the $47,000 that Norma paid back before she died. Before she died, I quitclaimed all my and the MWAW’s interest in the house to Norma so that she could leave it for her children. I didn’t need to do this. The house would have been mine after Norma died.
(I will be bringing the actual documentation to trial that proves these facts: the sales agreement for the condo and all the other supporting documents that show that I paid more than the money that Norma had given us for the radio show, and that I signed over the condo to Norma so she could leave it to her children without getting paid back the money I had borrowed to buy the home she needed when her LDS/Mormon children kicked her out.)
Again … dammit! My predatory skills of exploiting people are so crappy that I am in considerable debt because of these “acts” that I am always performing of being kind, compassionate, giving, loving, and respectful of others. I suck as a predator!
But anyways …
On pages 1201 through 1204 of PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 1 , Echthros spins what I did for Norma Olsen into the following malicious defamatory statements:
“Christopher did not do anything for Norma. The MWAW did not do anything for Norma. They tricked her out of her money and then I suspect that HER CHILDREN probably threatened to notify Adult Protective Services. … So where did Norma’s “large contribution”go ? Into Christopher’s own deep pockets. How do we know he spent it? Cause when he needed it to get Norma moved, he had to ask one of his zombies to bail him out. … Other people and organizations help people because people need help. What you have in this case is Christopher scrambling his badly abused zombies into action and in order to relocate this lone woman because he had taken her money and spent it on himself, and the Adult Protective Services undoubtedly found out about it. … Reality Check: Thanks to the MWAW; She lost all of her money… She lost the respect of her children… She lives in a house that is legally owned by someone else… Wow. No money, No refund, No interest on the refund, No Nephites, No marvelous work (ordinary at best) and it’s no wonder. Is she really that happy that someone took her money and bought themselves a house so she could have somewhere to live? That would be the same “Marvelous Work and a “miracle” as giving her money to her own kids so that THEY could buy themselves a house where she could live, wouldn’t it? The absurdity of it all is staggering. The profound pronouncements of glory and honor upon the heads of the MWAW matriarchs are lost in a sea of disingenuine [sic] collusion and coersion [sic]. This is just another tragic episode in the long list of tragedies that have occurred on this planet since the Marvelous Work and a Wonder and it’s founder came along. There needs to be a plaque mounted at the base of a 12′ tall bronze statue of Christopher pointing arcross [sic] the valley while holding his plastic sickle in the other hand that reads, ‘Bring me your money, and I will buy me some property where you can live until you die, unless I get a mandate from Joseph Smith telling me that you will no longer have anything to do with this work… then you gotta take it up with Him.’ By rights, Christopher should be sufficiently exposed by now, to the point that his own followers ought to demand that he confess his charade, but they neither care that he rides a wooden stick horse nor care that he is destroying the peace of so many whose lives he has brushed. They are on an artificial high and they cannot resist huffing on his pipe dream. I wish that I had found two items when they were fresh (it’s been six months now) and I wish I had pieces of evidence like these to consider back when I was a member of Christopher’s cult. I wish there had been a chrisnemelka.com site to check out, but there wasn’t. I owe it to myself to keep dogging this worthless fucker until he is dead and gone. I can’t do any more than flag his stinking sink hole, and hope the children who are abandoned or left for dead by the workings of the Marvelous Work and a Wonder will live to see their loved ones return to their senses, and come home.”
NOTE to Echthros:
You think you have a chance at trial? The above is just the tip of the iceberg of your malicious and hateful campaign of spinning everything about me, the MWAW, and what we do into your own version of falsehood and lies.
I am going to destroy you at trial. No … the Real Truth is going to destroy you!
If you think you were unable to stop physically shaking when you confronted me at your Garden Park public debate debacle … just wait … just wait. At that debate I was trying to be kind, compassionate, giving, loving, and respectful of you, so I left without confounding everything that you said during your portion of the debate.
But now, no more “performing” (as you believe). No more kindness, compassion, giving, love, and respect for you and what you have done. I know of no other mortal as hateful and malicious as you … and I will not rest until we have met each other in court and I have silenced you once and for all!
I’m going to destroy you with the “sword of truth coming out of my mouth” … and of course, with the witnesses and evidence that I bring to trial against you.
But anyways … 🙂